Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The provision of foraging opportunities may be a simple way of improving an animal's welfare, but this approach has been neglected for laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus). Standard housing contains little enrichment, and food is often providedad libitum, which may result in inactivity and obesity, especially in mature males. Foraging enrichments may offer a way to correct these deficiencies. This study compared three potential enrichments — a limited-access hopper, gnawing sticks and a foraging device — to standard housing and feeding conditions, in order to examine their effects on rat body weight, food consumption, behaviour and preferences. The subjects were 12 mature male Wistar rats. Effects were assessed from daily weighing and from video records of the rats' behaviour over 24 h periods. The rats' preferences were determined using a four-way test system in which they could choose between a standard cage and cages offering the three potential enrichments. Compared to the standard housing and feeding, the limited-access hopper had a tendency to reduce food consumption, but the time spent feeding increased. The gnawing sticks provided the rats with the opportunity to gnaw, but did not affect other behaviours or body weight. The foraging device had the benefits of reducing aggression and allowing the rats to search for and manipulate food, but resulted in significant gains in body weight. Additionally, the foraging device was the preferred feeding source. Of the four possible feeding locations, the rats spent the least amount of time in the standard cage. The foraging device provided the most benefits but requires further modification to address problems of obesity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".